Spears are better than swords: scientific proof

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

I have to wait 90 days to change my name : Both are trash compared to a trebuchet

Durandol : Obviously, it's the pen.

BASSFZz : I accept that spears are INDEED better than Swords...but Swords are cooler, so. XD

Sniper .93c : Interesting to note as you point out the spearman attacks effectively to the soldiers attacking ether side of him which is exactly what pawns in chess do because presumably they were based off spearman

The Modern Hermeticist : but muh only 1d6 damage

Daniel James Dolor : the guys looks like they having fun I wanna try that lol

furiousmat : Weren't swords a rich man's weapon? Just considering the amount of metal required to create one sword compared to a spear, it seems like spears would've been much cheaper. That might explain why they'd be used so much compared to swords. Like.. many guerilla groups today still use machetes and very few use laser guided bombs but that's got more to do with the availability of the weapon than its quality.

HaveSomeRekage : This just in: Having range on your opponent is usually helpful (more at 11)

Mosotti : Try light saber. No chance for the spear.

fsmoura : of course the spear is better . . . it has more penetration

Darren Mills : I get irrationally happy seeing Lloyd running away after giving those introductions

Aleksi Joensuu : This turned out to be a loooong comment :D In Finnish boffer fighting we fight in large groups - the main event of the year has around 600 participants, and groups consist of around 10-60 combattants. This has gone on for around 15 years. Watching this I could say before you started that in these 1vs1 matches if you have experienced fighters, the spear will usually win until you get to those large heater shields that you had. Once the swordsman has a large shield, it becomes a question of controlling that spear for the time it takes you to rush in. After the swordsman has closed in, the spearman's survival has most to do with how fast they can block and run away. The exception is if you have a sidearm such as a dagger or short sword. Then you have your chance to counter against an unwary swordsman. On the battlefield 1vs1 situations sometimes do happen after the major groups have clashed, or if you are otherwise in a skirmish situation. If you find yourself without a shield or with a small one against a spearman, then your best option is to just find a buddy with either a large shield - or a longer spear. For group vs group action, an even or even-ish spread of different weapons is absolutely essential. The spears, pikes and archers do the vast majority of the killing work. Some archers also adept at disturbing opposing spearmen by staying very close or in the front line and simply threatening them with arrows. You're pretty quick to duck behind a shield if someone is pointing an arrow at you -> and you can't use your pike when you're ducking behind a shield -> your opponents have an easier time poking holes in you and your friends. In this sort of line work, really, the sword and shield people have 2 jobs: To stay alive, and to keep the spearmen and everyone else alive. Notice how neither of these jobs are killing the enemy? Sure, in the event of a rush or break attempt you occasionally get to swing at someone, but most of your time is definately spent waving your shield in front of your spearman so THEY can work. There's also something to be said for controlling distance so that you present a nice enough target for the enemy that their spearmen want to try and poke at you - leaving them open for your spearmen to poke at them - while staying alive yourself. Of course, if you were to have ONLY spears in your group... Well, then, a well timed rush would finish you off pretty quickly, like in the video. There is an exception though: Some groups are skirmish focused and use short spears. They don't get into dug-in line situations where they could easily get rushed, preferring to find their way past enemies and keep on the move. This is effective - but won't always win the day if you actually need to go somewhere the others are guarding, or guard some place the others want to get to. But in the end I find the "is a sword better than a spear" question moot. They are all integral parts of formations. If you show up all spears, you are vulnerable to groups with shield and who know how to time rushes - you're the proverbial glass cannon. If you show up all shields and swords, you'll just get ground down by enemies with longer poky bits than you - you're the proverbial brick shithouse. Combine the two, and add in support from a couple archers, halberdiers, zweihänders... And NOW you become a fighting unit. Oh yeah the shield and spear style? There is a group who do that as well. There's a couple of places for it: One is going up against opponents without spears OR larger shields - you have an easier time striking them with your one-handed spear style, and your shield keeps you a bit safer. The other is when assaulting opponents who can't rush you and don't have spears - now you have your leisure at poking them with your superior range. A third one is if you're defending or are in a locked in shield wall type situation. They have carved half-moon slots in their shields so they can support the shield in it even while they have locked shields. When supported by she shield, thrusting becomes an easy mechanical operation with the other hand. Not much control or accuracy though. In the end, even in such a situation they are usually vulnerable to pikes which can just stay outside their range and keep on poking. This group though, always carry a sidearm actually strapped (or velcroed, oh the modernity) in their shield. This allows them to abandon the spear very quickly and switch to sword and shield.

hagamapama : You don't need that level of testing to establish the premise, history is all of the support you need. _What was the overwhelming majority of ancient and medieval soldiers armed with?_ Spears, halberds, voulges, billhooks, and other assorted reachy-extendy-hooky-stabby things. Even the Romans, who favored the gladius, still had spears. Officers usually had no spears mostly because they were there to direct traffic more than they were there to fight. The guys whose sole job was killing the enemy, who were expected to carry the battles, invariably had some descendent of the spear family. The spear is so ingrained in our cultural awareness as the ultimate infantry weapon that when they developed infantry firearms, _they immediately developed a tool called the Bayonet so they also worked as spears_

Tiwaking Tiwaking : *SPEAR OP ADMIN PLZ NERF*

Пётр Иванович : If the swordsmen unscrewed their pommels, the fight would have ended pretty quick tho :D

drewpamon : There is a good reason most armies in history, even in medieval times and feudal Japan, were spear carriers. Even samurai prefered spears over katanas.

sherpder : The Roman Empire proves this video wrong.

manbeastx69 : SHIELD WALL!!!!!!!!!

Rasmus Johansson : The virgin sword army vs. the chad Macedonian Phalanx

Fernando Martín-Serrano Torres : Kaladin has already proven that.

The Black Asian : Of course spears are better than swords! Ever heard of the weapon triangle? Lances has an advantage over swords!

vic ferg : AND KEEP YOUR SHIELD IN FRONT OF YOU!

toxicat : So, in battle I should drop my shield on the ground and wield the spear two-handed? Hmmmmm....

fsmoura : Better than swords, ok, but _NOT_ katanas . . . Katanas are so superior it's borderline magical. Scientists are still trying to understand why.

Wrymn : You forget that person with sword, would wear armor, not being naked. This way he could get close to spearman even when being hit, as armor would absorb/deflect the spear point naturally, resulting in spearman`s death

YeetOs : How did I get here from how to make a flip book, to Star Wars stop motions, to top best lightsabers, to how Disney ruined Star Wars to now here.

William Bain : Spear beats sword Sword beats axe Axe beats spear

Benoit Levesque : In the movie Troy (2004) there's an insane duel with shield and spear Plus all the front line have massive shield with hole for very long spears

Corn Bread : Spears are not as monolithic as swords. But spears are cheaper and more versatile.

AAA KK : 1. The spearmen would be a more difficult opponent for most swordsmen if instead of the small stabbing point, he had a spear with a long point that he could cut and fence with (for example an ancient Germanic framea or an african Nguni style spear). Here he has to make long thrusts (which are fast), but with a wide point spear he would also be able to make wrist-swings, which are even faster and harder to predict. Also, the spear they use is not well suited to be used one handed with a shield. A Framea on the other hand is perfectly suited to be used one handed with a round shield (provided the user is stong enough of course). 2. None of the swordsmen properly used their own round shield (which would have been much better than the oval shield, if used correctly). With the round shield its possible to knock the spearpoint to the side, then follow that movement in and close with the spearmen. Much of the same would apply to the medium shield. Seems none of the swordsmen in the vid had much experience with the shield, or perhaps none of them was strong enough to operate it in a fast, flowing motion.

GreenLanternSalem : Macedonian Phalanx. Badassery

Yngwie Viking : Saber vs Lancer

Tadicuslegion78 : Medieval Sergeant: Do you know how to use that thing? Lindy: Yeah, pointy end goes into the other man

GreenTurtleinHD : This is dumb. The traditional usage of spears, as well as swords, weren't in individual usage. The soldiers were apart of a unit of soldiers used in strategy. Spears were good for a frontline to lessen charges, as well as on the flanks to stop cavalry BUT swordsmen were at the back and mid. This is because in the situation two units were engaged, it wasn't always a solid formation, it was mixed like what you see in battles. This means a limit of space, having to account for friendly fire and always looking over your shoulder. Spears aren't good for that. Fullstop. Even spearmen held blades and swords on their sides for close confrontations, look at the Spartans and the Romans. The people who organised this into their armies, like the generals weren't dumbasses. They were strategist geniuses. Two newbies vsing each other in a field with the two weapons, of course the spear would win. Limited skill required, lighter, and more room. Get a master Spearman and Swordsman in a confined area and see who wins. Swordman might get stabbed but the spearman would be dead - Confined (BATTLE CONDITIONS is good for Swordsman). Open (NOT A UNIT CONFRONTATION ENVIRONMENT good for spearman).

Perhaps Perhaps : what about a halberd maaan

jigga jaw : I doubt it. If this were true, so many countries throughout history woudn't have used swords, they'd have all used spears. There are too many variables in play. The skill of the swordsman, vs the skill of the spearman: The fight could go either way. Then you've got shields to consider, many swordsmen are going to be carrying shields which either equalizes the fight, or tips it in the swordsman's favor. There's no way all this time, money, and effort was put into swords for thousands of years, if spears were just better. No way.

ThatOneGuy : Pointy

Mikosch2 : You what is funny? When you scroll through the news and find a headline "Stabbing: Four injured at university" and right afterward you get an alert for a new video "Spears are better than swords. Scientific proof."

Louz Brown : this isnt a prove dark souls proves it :I

Pickle Rick : "Half sworded long sword" ive never heard of that before

Dim : this is the first time i see someone using short spear in both hands

Jacques de Villiers : I love these videos!! Thank you

Mr. Chiweeni : Another plus, my wooden spear gets through airport scanners everytime.

Tom Visser : Greatswords might be stiffer when using real ones but they would also be a lot heavier, and much too slow to keep up with the spear's lightning-quick thrusts.

tier1solutions28 : I'm sorry this video is terrible it doesn't take into account how hard you have to thrust someone with a spear to penetrate lamellar armor, chainmail, or plate. It's a lot harder than one may think

Barrelz * : To be honest, the sword particularly the larger ones would have hit the spear out of the way much easier than this mock up. Particularly when they replace the foam spear with a heavy piece of dowel, that just seems very unfair. Perhaps the spear is a more effective tool, however, how comes with Marius reforms and the Romans adopting a short sword did they become so much more effective? Of course Marius introduced new tactics with them completely dropping the Greek phalanx style of fighting, but surely they proved much more effective with their very short swords, namely the 'gladius'. They went onto destroy and conquer many an enemy which still firmly used the spear. Particularly the northern tribes like the Celts and Gauls who didn't particularly follow uniform attack groups and would rush the Roman lines with short spears.

king of potatoes : But aren't halberds better than spears? Cause you have more options...

Daniel Federico : I sort of no longer care what results you got. That looks like immense fun.

Mr. Clifford Johnson : Very good documentary, I've always favored the spear, it's one the tools that can be used to fish with, hunt with, and to war with. One of the oldest weapons in the world...

Cody Ingram : I really wish these sword fighting bouts didnt look so silly. Otherwise this would be such a cool thing to get into. But if im gonna pick a hobby tantamount to bugspray against women then at the very least im not gonna pick something that looks as silly as what these goobers are doing